Did you know that for most of the 19th century
there was a steadfastly theonomic church in the United States? This small
denomination held firmly to the original version of the Westminster Confession of Faith, as adopted by the Church of
Scotland in 1647. The American revisions of 1788 were regarded as egregious
mutilations.

Although small, it had an unusually high profile in
comparison with its size. One of its first Pastors, Alexander McLeod, declined
an invitation to become Vice-President of what is now Princeton University,[1]
preferring to serve his congregation in the City of New York. Another Pastor
was Samuel B. Wylie. His theonomic publication, The Two Sons of Oil, so outraged a U.S. Congressman, William
Findley, that he wrote a full length book (~382 pages), attempting to refute
it.[2]
Pastor James Renwick Willson, residing at the time in Albany, N.Y. served as a
chaplain to the New York State Assembly. His sermon series, “Prince Messiah,”
so drew the wrath of the Assembly that a mob was commissioned to publicly burn
the preacher in effigy before the State House door.[3]

The name of the church was The Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA). Its heritage
went back to the Reformation, and later to the 17th century Scottish
Covenanters like Donald Cargill who proclaimed:

We shall say this one word more,
there is one Great Thing Folk stumbles at in that Paper [the Queensferry
Paper, a Covenanter manifesto of
which Cargill was a co-author] that Kings ought to Rule or Judge
according to the Judicial Law;
and that these Laws Kings ought to Rule by, ought to be according to the
Word of GOD, And think ye this a Great Wrong? The People
of GOD was ruled Two Hundred Years and upwards by this Law only,
and can any be fitter to be a Law-Giver than GOD?… So the Law
of GOD should be our Law. Where the Law of GOD is received [is]
where Christians are; Let Christians go to the Law which
GOD has found out; And let Heathens and Turks go to the Law
that Nature finds out.[4]
(italics and capitalization as in original)

Cargill’s notion of Kings ruling and judging “according to
the Judicial Law,” legislating
“according to the Word of GOD,” and his dismissal of the viability of natural law, are of the very
essence of Theonomy. A clearer summary of what Theonomy is all about would be
difficult to find anywhere. In the Queensferry Paper he makes it clear
that he is excluding the ceremonial and typical elements of the judicial law.

The RPCNA, of
course, still survives to the present day but not in a form that past worthies
like James R. Willson would be able to recognize. They would be deeply
disturbed to find the current Testimony of the church has gutted the Westminster
Confession by striking out those portions which deal with Reformed Magistracy,
including the Establishment Principle—reflecting a major shift towards a
pluralist and Anabaptist worldview.[5]

What went wrong?
Many things, but mainly as it became increasingly sidetracked by secondary
concerns—for example, by aligning itself with the “temperance” movement—it began
to lose its commitment to the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20) and the Crown
Rights of King Jesus. Eventually, during the first half of the 20th
century, the RPCNA found itself sinking steadily deeper into theological
liberalism.

All was not lost,
however. The Lord used a few good men like J. G. Vos who worked tirelessly to reverse
the trend,[6] and
recover many basics of the Reformed Faith, but not all. Sadly, there was
continued regress in the field of Reformed Magistracy. In spite of this, efforts
at reformation were continued, especially by the late Raymond (Ray) Joseph who
had a clear vision of Theonomy and Magistracy, reinforced with a healthy
Postmillenialism.

The theonomic roots
of the RPCNA are documented in the article below, starting with the Scottish
Reformation. Moving to the 19th century, extracts are provided from
the writings of several early RPCNA pastors which demonstrate their commitment
to Theonomy as an integral part of Christian Magistracy. The article concludes
with a brief outline of the more recent history of the RPCNA, including its
departures from the Westminster Confession, leading up to the present
day.

Note: readers unfamiliar
with the notion of a twofold judicial law and related terms like “particular
equity” and “common equity” are recommended to pay special attention to pp. 15-21 on the Westminster Confession of Faith.

[2] Samuel B. Wylie, The Two Sons of Oil; or,
The Faithful Witness for Magistracy and Ministry upon a Scriptural Basis, 3rd
ed. (Philadelphia, 1850), https://archive.org/details/twosonsofoilorfa00wylirich. The original edition appeared in 1803;
William Findlay, Observations on “The Two
Sons of Oil” (Pittsburgh, 1812), https://archive.org/details/observationsonth00findrich. Regrettably,
in later life, Wylie repudiated the position he had taken in The Two Sons of Oil. Church historian, W.
Melancthon Glasgow, writes, “This is the best presentation of the position of
the Covenanter Church that has been written, from which the author departed in
1833.” W. Melancthon Glasgow, History of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in
America (Baltimore, 1888), 742. https://archive.org/details/historyofrefor00glas.

[5]The Constitution of the
Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (Pittsburgh, PA: Crown &
Covenant, 2010), A-73, A-101, http://reformedpresbyterian.org/images/documents/constitution2010.pdf . Note the rejection of most of
WCF 23.3, and all of WCF 31.2. This is surprising because
these paragraphs were never understood in any Erastian sense since the adoption
of the WCF by the Church of Scotland
in 1647.

3 comments:

"The American revisions of 1788 were regarded as egregious mutilations."

I agree with this statement of yours, but could you find support that they thought so? I think it would be very helpful to all readers and more of an impact to read their thoughts on it instead of your assessment of their thoughts.

Hi Edgar, From Vindiciae Legis:"It looks like Edgar may only have read the introductory article. The actual download has four footnotes on p. 7 supporting the statement in question. Perhaps I should have included these with the introductory article as well."